Search results

the handwritten tradition of Liber glossarum has several very interesting features. It makes it possible to see how lexicographic knowledge has been developed in practice and shows what care, those who have applied to transmit them, sought to refine them. The oldest manuscripts kept (Paris, Cambrai and Vatican) are the second generation copies, yet they still strongly retain the archaetype's footprint. Their layout, the critical signs placed on the margins and sometimes even their abbreviations reproduce as much as possible the characteristics of their common ancestor. The aim of this communication is to provide a description of the archaetype as it appears behind its copies and thus to contribute to the survey on the history of the Liber glossarum constitution. In the first part, I will propose an overview of the main physical characteristics of the text (provision, writing, etc.), with particular interest in the critical revision to which the archaetype appears to have been subject before it was circulated. The second part will provide some studies of recurrent paleographic problems caused by the collision of graphic systems with different geographical origins. This contribution will provide an opportunity to take stock of the assumptions about the origin of the Liber glossarum. ; International audience The manuscript tradition of the Liber glossarum has several interesting features. It allows us to observe how the lexicographical knowledge has been materially elaborated and shows how carefully those who have transmitted them have sought to refine them. The oldest preserved manuscripts (Paris, Cambrai and Vatican) are second generation's copies and yet they still retain marks of the archetype. Their layout, the critical signs placed into the margins and sometimes even their abbreviations reproduce as much as possible their common ancestor. The purpose of this paper is to provide a description of the archetype as it appears behind its copies and thus contribute to the inquiry into the history of the ...

Intellectual historians have rarely attended to the genre of fighting manuals, but these provide a new window on long-debated questions such as the relationship between Scholasticism and Humanism. This article offers a close comparison of the first known fencing manual, the 14-th century Liber de Arte Dimicatoria (Leeds, Royal Armouries FECHT 1, previously and better known as MS I.33), and the corpus of fighting manuals which underwent a remarkable expansion during the 15th and 16th centuries. While the former clearly shows its origins in a scholastic background, the latter is mainly viewed as reflecting its humanist context. To this historiographical division corresponds a linguistic one: MS I.33 is a Latin text, while the rest of the corpus is mainly written in German and Italian. However, exceptions arise, amongst which, Heinrich von Gunterrodt's Sciomachia et Hoplomachia: sive de Veris Principiis Artis Dimicatoriae (1579), the first text which explicitly refers to I.33. This article will compare these two texts, in order to interrogate their common relation to Scholasticism, namely the traditional frame of the knowledge within the medieval and early modern universities. The intent is to show that (at least some) Renaissance fight books include references to Scholasticism and to provide a better qualification of the nature of such references. The general hypothesis is that a large part of the texts―and products of culture―of the Renaissance that have been read, until recently, exclusively in relation to a humanist intellectual background can valuably be interpreted in the context of a Scholasticism that is still vivid during the period in question.